Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

First time accepted submitter mikewilsonuk writes "I have a 10-year-old grandson who has shown an interest in chemistry. He is home educated and doesn't read as well as schooled kids of his age. He hasn't had much science education and no chemistry at all. None of his parents or grandparents have chemistry education beyond the school minimum and none feel confident about teaching it. My own memories of chemistry teaching in school are of disappointment, a shocking waste of everyone's time and extreme boredom. I think there must be a better way. Can anyone suggest an approach that won't ruin a child's interest?"

At that age, I would suggest to show them what chemistry can do: blow things up (safely), make things turn different colors, make things smell bad, or burn things (again, safely!). Then go into why the stuff is doing what it is doing. Finally, once you explained why it is doing what it is doing, see if you can change things up to come up with different effects.

Leave the boring shit about valence electrons to later. Just show him what chemistry can do. If that doesn't hook him, move on.

On the same note, combine chemistry and home ec. I'm guessing it's harder to be bored when you can eat the results of your experiment.

Some cooking is biology (e.g. yeast and fermenting) but most is chemistry. What are baking soda and baking power used for? What gives foods different flavors (sweet, sour, salty, etc.)? Smell as a whole is why too advanced for that age, but you may want to look at specific odors, such as almond or banana. What is it that makes a banana smell the way it does vs. what you get in banana extract of flavoring used for cooking.

Another thing on the practical side, but not as much fun, is cleaning. Why do we use acid (bleach) for some cleaning tasks but base (ammonia) for others? Definitely cover why you don't mix the two (bleach and ammonia).

There's tons of home experiments, even with the post-9/11 issues with getting certain chemicals. Take a cup of every liquid in the fridge, put a small piece of meat in each. What's happens over the next week?

When you get the electrons and valence and that stuff, go to fireworks. Read & observe--this is not a field for home hands on experimenting. What is added to fireworks to get different colors? Why do different things have different colors when they burn?

Well, here's my experience with a home schooling experiment, for what it's worth.
When my son turned 5, I expected him to go to Kindergarten like any other kid. It turned out my wife had different idea, she decided to home school him. I didn't have an issue with this initially because of his education, as she was in fact an elementary school teacher for years, but was now a stay-at-home mom. My initial objection was because by then I'd expected her to return to the work force because we needed the mone

As is very common. I was asked to give a general science lesson to a class of Nepali schoolchildren, about 25 of them around 14 years old. I was only in for one class as a bit of a novelty for them, so I asked what they wanted to learn in the hour. The first response, and a very enthusiastic one, was "how do you make a bomb?"

Finding bomb making chemicals in Nepal isn't exactly difficult, so I went with nuclear (fission) devices. That lets you cover the basics of atoms, radioactivity, E=mc^2, chain reactions, a whole bunch of interesting physics, but without the worry that they're going to pop out and buy some U235 or Plutonium.

So I'd suggest a similar approach - find out why the kid is interested in chemistry and work from there. There will probably be a whole lot of "well, before you can understand X you need to know a little about Y...", but if the kid can see the end result of the study then it gives them a little more incentive and interest.

My early chemistry researches were finding household chemicals that could blow things up. I found them. YMMV

True that! These days I would have been locked up in Gitmo before I was 14, and I was a Boy Scout. Do you know how many interesting things a 12 year old can do with a nearly unlimited supply of carbide? I knew how to generate hydrogen for explosive balloons using household chemicals such as Drano. I learned about oxidizing agents using KClO3 fertilizer, which was pretty easy to get. I didn't learn how to make thermite until I got into high school though. That's the kind of stuff that got and kept me i

This sounds like one of those classic cases where the client thinks his knows what he wants but doesn't realize he's wrong.

First, why isn't the child in a regular school system?

Assuming that he's not in public school for some reason, what system is the parents using for education? There exist full homeschooling packages that are intended to give students all the necessary resources to learn.

Assuming he's using one of those and the parents find that the chemistry in it is lacking, why not part-time enroll the child in a local school? From what I understand this isn't all that uncommon for home-schooled kids to get science instruction.

Assuming that's entirely untenable, what about hiring a private tutor for science education? Is there a local university you can contact for resources on this?

Finally, why are you asking Slashdot and not a homeschooling community?

(I'm attempting to avoid any assumptions as to the reason for home schooling.)

It's hard to find a home schooling group. Sure, there are a lot of friendly one, but the vast majority are doing it for either:Religious beliefs.Ignorance about the schools system.

I say hard, but frankly I haven't found one that doesn't have some crazy illiteracy bouncing around. From young earth to anti-vaccines.

And of course actual science and teaching are disciplines, not something you read from a book.Personally, My kids go do school during the week, and then I sneak home schooling in under the guise of fun science.Well, my kids are much older now, so there really isn't any guise about it anymore.

I tried to word all of my assumptions in a manner that makes it obvious what solution I think should be explored if they were wrong. For example, "[W]hy not part-time enroll the child in a local school?... Assuming that's entirely untenable..." -- obviously I think that a possible solution is part-time enrollment in public school for science education, but if that's not possible...

I don't think Slashdot is necessarily the worst site to ask generally geeky questions but I think the submitter could probably

"Clever parent" -- from current (limited) evidence, that's probably not the case here.

1. The grandparent is reasonably intelligent. The question is clear and concise; he's been in the computer industry and coding for decades (according to his web site [whisperingwind.co.uk]).2. The kid is below-average in reading and hasn't had much science by age 10--probably not a great job of homeschooling.3. The grandparent is asking the question, not the parents--the parents aren't doing a good enough job and the grandparent felt the need to step in. Most likely the parents aren't smart enough to do it well.4. The grandparent probably knows he wont change the parents' minds about homeschooling so is trying to make the best of things by giving his grandson a decent chemistry education.

This [elementeo.com] was recommended to me at a technical conference. It's like Magic, but with elements and compounds. Not a formal education, but I think it would be a good way to test the waters regarding his interest and aptitude.

Listen, Chemistry is not like Reading Riting and Rithmetic. Chemistry is a complex science. It cannot just be suddenly dropped upon an interested 10 year old and hope it sticks. The child needs to fully understand advanced mathematics like Algebra. He must also have proficient reading comprehension because Chemistry texts are not light reading. A basic understanding of Biology would also be greatly helpful. Then there's being able to conduct basic lab experiments to help the child grasp what actually

Actually, you are completely and totally wrong. They used to sell chemistry sets for surprisingly young audiences (I'm thinking 7 or 8). Further, you don't really need any other skills to learn chemistry. Chemistry is more like a language. The sooner you start learning, the better. The system of prerequisites we have built up in this country is foolish; nothing more than an attempt to curb liability in the case of accident.

I am a chemist, and for 90+% of chemistry (especially at that level), you don't need any math beyond fractions and the ability to count to eight.

Yes, it is better to be taught by someone that knows what they are doing, but the notion that you need advanced math to teach basic chemistry is ludicrous. The notion that biology is "helpful" is even moreso. The level where the two intersect is extremely advanced, and won't be taught to ANY homeschooled kid prior to at least the tenth grade.

It sounds like your are making the mistake that is often made when discussing educational topics. You are thinking that subjects start at college level and move up from there. Cooking IS chemestry. 10 years old is plenty old enough to learn to cook, and plenty old enough to understand why most of what happens is happening. The level of chemistry that you seem to be discussing is a level that pretty much doesn't happen until college, and then not everyone takes it.

If you want to keep him interested and enthusiastic, expose him to as much chemistry as you can, while educating his teachers. Buy him chemistry sets and beginner books, and have his parents research more advanced things so they can accurately answer his questions as they come up. Take him to Science museums, the hands on kind if you can. Look for summer programs and other focused "day-camp" style STEM programs, im sure you could find some that have a chemistry focus. Even just taking him on tours of nea

This is an obvious failure of home "schooling". Send the kid to school. Let him learn to socialize for one, and get a well rounded education his parents apparently lack. The fact that he's had minimal science education for the first 4-5 grades of his life, is really a sad testament to this type of education.

And just because *you* hated your chemistry education doesn't mean it was bad. People tend to say things are "a waste of everyone's time" when they really mean "it's something I had no interest in / aptitude for".

Hmm, public school sure did me some good. After about 8th grade I stopped making friends, and after years of talk therapy (if I were autistic, I think someone would have said something, but not even ass burgers), now that I'm nearly 30, I've started to be able to make connections with people again. Ironically, discovering synthetic marijuana was one of the catalysts of that. Woke up something I'd buried deep inside back before everything went horribly wrong in middle school.

My home school kids of MS/HS age are learning chemistry from a PhD chemist through our local home school group co-op. Barring access to a home school co-op, there's plenty of information and fun experiments available that should interest a 10 year old, either from online sources like youtube and google, or from books at Amazon. If you have a local science museum, you can contact them about any local science clubs/groups that cater to children that age. But unless he is more than just interested, most official curriculum is going to be at the high school level and a bit over the head of a 10 year old.

There is a free educational package that is good fun - NetLogo - http://ccl.northwestern.edu/netlogo/ [northwestern.edu]
It has some models for chemistry in there. Basically it shows chemistry as a complex system using agent based models. But for a ten year old, it's fun because it's visual and intuitive. An idea.

I'm glad to see, judging by all the "Anonymous Coward" comments, that I'm not the only one who believes that parents that aren't specifically trained to replace the teachers their children would normally encounter in a public/private school *shouldn't* be allowed to home school. You are doing nothing but a HUGE disservice to your child(ren) by keeping them from their peers, sheltered from the world, and away from opinions that are different from yours. We all *NEED* these kinds of interactions in order to better cope with the world when we become adults and move out on our own.

If the parents that do this to their kids use the "schools aren't safe", "schools aren't teaching what I think they should be", or "schools are failing our children" excuses should *get involved* in their local school, and encourage all other parents to do the same. If their schools really are falling behind in some way, it's *THE PARENTS FAULT* for not being involved.

I specifically left out any of the varied religious excuses, as I don't believe they're valid -- religion has zero place in a publicly funded school, and should be reserved exclusively for church and home. If parents want their child to have some schooling with religious content, they need to pay to send them to such a school.

I also don't want to hear any of this "I don't have the time to get involved in (insert public school function) here" excuses. If you don't have the time to raise your kid(s) properly, DON'T HAVE THEM.

You are doing nothing but a HUGE disservice to your child(ren) by keeping them from their peers, sheltered from the world

Sheltered? Who is more sheltered, a kid that interacts with adults every day learning in the real world, or one that simply lives to avoid attack by the pack of adolescents they are forced into?

On Slashdot of all places we should welcome and embrace the idea that kids may well and truly be better off being with adults more often than children, until they reach a more mature age. But I guess it depends on if you want a mature mental state, or a childish one...

I was home-schooled all through junior high and high school. It let me figure out what I wanted to do before college. It gave me a sense of self-esteem that I did not have in school before. It gave me willpower to make my own choices instead of doing what everyone else did.

That was invaluable, and I maintain that every single child that can be home schooled should be. There is literally NOTHING a parent could do worse than most public schools will do with kids minds, and with the internet to help you with coursework you can easily equal a public school education.

Doesn't shock me at all, since the statement "half of all children that attend school perform below average" is THE DEFINITION OF AVERAGE. I'll even bet you that the other half of all school children perform above average. Ever seen a bell curve??

I agree with the GP, if you're school sucks in your area, do something about it! Saying "our nation's schools are horrible, let's all homeschool or send everyone to private schools" only moves the problem around and shits on all of the good work that public school teachers have been doing for decades (my mother retired from teaching your kids after 40 years). There are definitely real problems in public education, but scrapping the system completely and starting over is not a solution, nor is bleeding it dry financially and "standardized testing" our kids into little Scantron-bubbling morons.

Give him the tools, get him to ask question and experiment.When something happen and he want to know why, don't tell him. Show him how to find out. My kids are quite internet savey because often when they wan to know something, I'll find a good page, and read it with them. You're not lecturing, they are digging. I never said 'just cause' to my kids. when they wen through their Why phase I answered everything as accurate as reasonable, and if I didn't know, we looked it up. Every time I hear parent create a disengenious answer I cringe a little. ITwill be so hard to gte that piece of bad information out of their head.

If he is into something, have a goal related to that that can be solved with what you want to teach, in this case chemistry, then do that.

For example, maybe he is into trains. Well, what chemicals can you get to have him experiment with to make smoke?Volcanoes? well , that's an easy one.

When he figures something out, but wan'ts it to be better, then introduce to some more complex chemistry ideas.

If you want to impress him, make some elephant toothpaste. Get your supplies from a chemistry supply place.

Mentos at soda is another great way to get them to ask question.

OTOH, if his homeschooling was done by lazy people, he may have had the why in him buried deep under a lie of belief. SO you need to gently get it back out.

Sounds to me like home schooling is letting the kid down a bit. I loved my public Chemistry / physics education... Making rockets, playing with Science Olympiad, Egg Drop contests. I remember on the first day in my High School chem class, the teacher demonstrated infra-red radiation and the speed of light by taking a bowl filled with soap water, and a propane tap, and creating (and then lighting on fire) propane bubbles. He pointed out that as soon as you saw the flash, you felt the heat, and then went into a lecture about wave radiation and the light spectrum.

You can probably do that with your own kid, but there is something to be said about the benefits of learning something from someone who is passionate about the material.

He is home educated and doesn't read as well as schooled kids of his age. He hasn't had much science education and no chemistry at all. None of his parents or grandparents have chemistry education beyond the school minimum and none feel confident about teaching it.

At some point, someone might tell you that if you can't keep him up to the standards of the kids who aren't home schooled, he's going to need some remedial education and possibly be required to attend public school -- and possibly lose a year in the process.

I had some cousins who were home-schooled... and there was a curriculum they were required to have covered. And if they didn't, you weren't allowed to home-school any more and would need to transition to public school. I think for high-school or even a little before they all ended up going back to public school.

So, are you helping or him or hurting him in the long run if you can't get him through what he needs? It's difficult to teach something you don't know enough about yourself.

All of my children are in a home school program to specifically achieve the following:

* Dramatically improved science curriculum over state requirements.* Aggressive reading and mathematics programs.* Enhanced educational environment (a quiet, well equipped classroom).* Teachers who really care, and want each child to be able to compete in a demanding global economy as adults. We love our students like parents should, because we are both.

In order to teach my nine year old chemistry, I do not have to be an expert chemist. I simply have to know more than a nine year old does about chemistry. It really isn't that hard, and it has been fun for all of us to expand our knowledge. If you are going to engage in home education, you can't do it sitting on the sidelines. You have to educate yourself first. Then you can teach. Expect more from the teacher than you do the student.

If none of the above is happening for your grandson, consider placing that child in public school. Many public education options are abysmal. If results from home education are worse than the public option, consider that a major red flag. Your benchmark should be a grade or two ahead in most subjects (unless the child has a learning disability).

Teaching at home doesn't work for everyone. It isn't always the ideal solution. I wish I had a bazillion and one dollars to hire private instructors with decades of experience to do the teaching. There is no doubt, though, that what we are doing is working. All of my children, even the ones who struggle, placed in the top 5% in the last round of state required testing. They are not geniuses. They simply know how to work. Something their peers tend to have a hard time with.

Unless he has physical developmental issues that affect his mental capabilities, send him to school, get his reading level up.I get it, ignorance is bliss and everyone wants to protect their ignorance and shrink their world as small as they need to, so they can make sure theystay right.

He's clearly not getting the education he deserves, is falling behind everyone. Parents need to have major motivation and dedicate a lot of time to compete with a half decent school.

The fact that you're on slashdot with a statement that he doesn't read as well as other kids his age shows the problem.It's great that you're trying to step forward and help, but yeah, send him to school.

Skipping all the religious nut accusations, I'm going to focus on the one thing I think should be addressed RIGHT NOW for this child. Reading. You say he doesn't read as well as other children his age, and this concerns me. That is absolutely not typical of well home-schooled children. My niece was reading chapter books at 3, got her black belt at 12, and is enrolling in college courses at 15. She's an incredible artist, and has taken a number of community art courses. Her brother isn't far behind. He was reading chapter books at 6, got his black belt at 10, is very active in local little league baseball, and will be enrolling in college courses himself as soon as he decides what he wants to learn more about that he can't get at Kahn. Smart money says it'll have to do with Engineering.

Before you ask, their mother (my sister) did not go to college, nor did she attend any secondary school. She didn't load up on extracurricular activities in school, and she didn't marry into an intellectual family. Her husband is an MBA, but he directs their learning far less than my sister. It's not impossible for a high school grad to learn how to do it right, but it's not easy to actually *do* it right. You have to be willing to let them go learn. Both children are far more outgoing with people of all ages and flavors than most adults I know. They are well spoken, polite, and fit well into almost any civilized conversation.

Get your grandson to read. That's critical at this point. Throw the chores out the window if you have to, let him skip church to read, let him read all night in bed (for now), but put something in his hand that will engross him. Harry Potter, The Hunger Games, Artemis Fowl, *anything* by Rick Riordon, just get that kid reading something besides the bible. Now is NOT the time to censor his reading, it's time to let it go. All the books mentioned above are great for pre-teens and young adults, though perhaps the Hunger Games could wait a year or so.

And mark my words, if religious censorship is the reason he hasn't read these books already, then I'm guessing chemistry is not going to be a good choice anyway. Too much science, not enough faith.

Home schooled children don't have to be idiot god-botherers, and they don't have to be idiot hippies. They can be very intelligent, creative, and amazing. But only if their parents *LET* them. Don't direct their learning, EMPOWER it. There's a big difference.

As a home-schooling dad of 5 kids, I can't agree more with this post. In my experience, the typical home-schooler is a voracious reader, and to a large degree teaches himself through reading. If this young man is 10 but is below grade-level or just plain disinterested in reading, then this is going to be a huge barrier in his schooling (home-schooling or not).

1) Less than public school kids reading ability essentially equates to illiteracy. Considering how many of my classmates in public high school could not read beyond 4th grade level.

2) Don't blame home schooling itself. Just as there are good and band schools. There are good and bad home schools.

My wife was home schooled. She is now an RN. Her brother was home schooled. Earn a number of competitive scholarships. He was even on the TV show "The Scholar" and placed 3rd. Attended Dartmouth university and did quite well. My wife's sister, who was also homeschooled, just graduated from Dartmouth as well.

Overall, I would say that 90% of the homeschoolers excel over the public school students. Yes, there are some failings. But far far less than found in public schools.

The BSA has a lot of of great learning materials for all ages. For 9 year olds, check the Wolf and Bear book electives - all sorts of stuff in there. Also the Sports and Academics programs - belt loops and pins. For older kids, the Merit Badge pamphlets are terrific resources.
Boy Scout Chemistry MB [scoutermom.com] Cub Scout Science [meritbadge.org]
Some great chemistry experiments for young ones are:

Electricity from salt water

Non-Newtonian liquids (corn starch)

Slime (polymers)

Menthos + coke bottle rockets

Vinegar and baking soda bottle rockets

Strawberry DNA extraction

litmus tests using dyes from garden veggies

sugar crystal growing

magic rocks

surface tension (soap, oil, water, etc)

states of matter (ice, butter, dry ice)

Keep it simple and stuff they can relate to. Be sure to talk about safety on dangerous reactions, acid and alkaloid burns, etc.
Check out also the Khan Academy online - lots of good stuff in there.
www.khanacademy.org/

They couldn't possibly be concerned about their child's safety because of a lack of a trained responder at the school or a track record of poorly handling bullying. Nor could they be concerned about substandard results from our country's education system. They couldn't even be atheist liberal arts majors concerned about the influence of the religious right on curiculum. Nope they are the worst kind of folks, religious idiots, because those folks seem the most interested in seeking out help for their shortcomings in instructing their children in science.

I have cousins who were homeschooled for most of their school careers. They went to public high school, though, because there are so many resources and social experiences you have there that you don't have at home. They all graduated pretty much at the top of their respective classes. I have no problem with homeschooling if you can provide an excellent education at home.

This grandchild is below-average in reading, which is obviously a crucial component of primary education. Failing at that, and not being comfortable with science, the parents are probably not qualified to be homeschooling the child. It is reasonable, then, to assume that they are not doing it because they can do a better job than the school system. That means it could easily be for religious reasons, which I believe are a terrible reason to homeschool. The submission likely would have said otherwise if that were not the reason.

The child may be behind due to learning disabilities (dyslexia, etc), that many of the school systems handle very poorly. I have seen children who have made it to 3rd grade not knowing how to read due to dyslexia but the school did not know because of clueless or careless teachers, overcrowding, or lack of well handled funding.

Don't always assume that the homeschooling is due to religious reasons. After all, they did come to a geek/nerd related web site to ask, rather then a church based web site.

I have seen children who have made it to 3rd grade not knowing how to read due to dyslexia but the school did not know because of clueless or careless teachers

Please be aware that teachers are not allowed to make those kinds of determinations. My wife is a 2nd grade teacher - with a masters degree in special education from a very prestigious university - and is required to refer students to the administration for screening. If the parents don't want their obviously autistic child tested, it doesn't happen. A lot of parents don't want their child labeled with a learning disability, even it it will help them in the long run.

Yes, the lack of reading ability is a poor sign, but not necessarily proof that the parents are slacking. My sister can read very well, but it took a lot of blood, sweat, and tears from my mom to get her there (my siblings and I were home schooled, obviously). If you had looked at her development at 9 or 10, you might have reached the same conclusion (parents are incompetent and/or don't care)... but neither were true. It just took a lot of time and effort with her, more than it did with my brother and more than it would take for most children her age. That skews results.

Your logic as to why the parents are doing it for religious reasons is also highly suspect. Even if the parents are incompetent, there's no reason to assume that they would recognize that (or that they wouldn't think the school system more incompetent even if they did recognize it). The parents believing they can do better is still absolutely a reasonable possibility, given what we know.

It is reasonable, then, to assume that they are not doing it because they can do a better job than the school system. That means it could easily be for religious reasons, which I believe are a terrible reason to homeschool. The submission likely would have said otherwise if that were not the reason.

How did you manage to go from

1) It could be religious reasonsto2) It's probably religious reasons because the submitter didn't say otherwise?

Because all religious people wind up working for churches? I did not grow up in a religious home, however I am a theist. I'm also an engineer. The idea that religious people somehow do not or cannot contribute to society is weird at best. In fact there are other engineers on my team who are also theists and they do an excellent job. One coming to a logical conclusion that there is a God does not correlate to their ability to do work.

Now my daughter is being home schooled. Not for religious reasons but because public schools teaches to the lowest common denominator. If she was going to public school, she would be in pre-school, but she already reads, adds, subtracts, multiplies, does simple algebra (2 times duck = 2 ducks) and has basic science concepts. The only place she is lacking is writing (she writes like a kindergartner) and history/government. But she's only 5 and Kindergarten doesn't even teach that. So this weird concept on Slashdot that th== dumb is plain academic intolerance in action.

I think religious reasons are a fine reason to homeschool. I'd rather they deal with those personal matters at home, instead of demanding the public schoolteachers waste time acknowledging or debating their particular flavor of pseudo-science. And for the path those kids are likely to end up on, which might be theology or music or church administration, it's a perfectly adequate education.

No, a religious homeschooling is not setting those kids up for careers teaching biology or any of the sciences, but with a belief structure like that at home, those kids probably weren't going to end up contributing to the field anyway.

One of my best friends, a devout Christian (elder in his church, etc) who has devout Christian parents, was homeschooled. He did his PhD at MIT and a post-doc at another fairly prestigious university. He's currently a professor at a decent state university whose name you would recognize if I told you. He and I are in the same general area and I'm familiar with his publication record, so I will add that, IMO, the job is way below his weight class. His wife (homeschooled; graduated #1 in her law school) wanted to live in a particular part of the country, so that's where he found a job. One of his siblings has a BS in computer science and another a BS in chemical engineering. The third has an MA in music education and is a public school choir director, so I guess you got one out of four right, there.

I have another Christian friend who was homeschooled. He's 29 years old. As you suggested, he is quite gifted musically, has a masters in theology, and works part time at his church. Of course, he earned that degree while simultaneously working on a PhD in engineering at the University of Texas at Austin, which he fairly recently finished. He is also heavily involved in local 3rd party politics (so much so that he told me the other day that he was offered a position by the party at the state level. He turned it down to work at a local start-up company). His wife doesn't have her fingers in quite as many pies, but she was also homeschooled (they met as kids) and is about to complete an MS in cognitive science.

These are admittedly all "anecdotal evidence." I honestly don't know whether having religious parents and being homeschooled makes a child more or less likely than average to excel in the sciences. (Although it can safely be said that having religious parents tends to result in better outcomes on a wide variety of other measures. See, for example, this book. [amazon.com]) But here's the thing: I am willing to bet that you don't know, either, and that you're talking out of your ass. Put down the Richard Dawkins and try to meet some scientifically-literate Christians, maybe at a church in a university town, or something.

Virtually all of the home-schooled kids I know are at least as well educated as their public school counterparts. I know one that finished Calc II while still at home, and he plays the French horn beautifully well. (I haven't heard what college degree he graduated with, but I'd be shocked if he didn't ace it.) But this same kid believes that dinosaurs never existed. He can go forth in this world and will no doubt succeed in any field he chooses. He'd make a fine engineer, or lawyer, or mathematician. He'll probably go on to be a deacon in his church some day. But I also can pretty much guarantee you he won't choose a career in paleontology. And I don't think he'll be teaching biology, geology, or astronomy if he thinks god created the universe 6,000 years ago, because those professions simply wouldn't fit with his worldview. I'm good with that.

While having a religious upbringing may sound like it correlates to success, I'd postulate that the primary reason the kids you and I know who are succeeding is because their parents have cared greatly about their children's success for their entire lives. And I consider home schooling to be prima facie evidence of parents who care. Parents who use the schools as babysitters, as surrogate parents, as the disciplinarians, or to provide their moral compasses, those who abdicate their own responsibilities for raising their children, they're far more likely to have the kids that don't reach their potential. And that comprises a depressingly large percentage of kids.

I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Yes, of course, "religious" people contribute to scientific discovery, and have throughout history. However, religious people aren't all the same, and the ones who are the bulk of the home-schoolers in this country (USA; note that the original poster is from the UK so a lot of this probably doesn't apply to him, but this discussion has certainly centered on USA-specific stuff) are of a certain group of religious sects that definitely do NOT contribute to sc

They couldn't possibly be concerned about their child's safety because of a lack of a trained responder at the school or a track record of poorly handling bullying. Nor could they be concerned about substandard results from our country's education system. They couldn't even be atheist liberal arts majors concerned about the influence of the religious right on curiculum.

The kid has a much greater chance of being hit by a car than he has of being hurt in a situation that could have been prevented by a "trained responder", yet I'm guessing you wouldn't suggest that the kid never cross a street.

Parents can have all sorts of reasons to want to home school their kids, but "lack of a trained responder" is not one of them.

I coach martial arts in a Chicago inner-city public high school. Way inner city, South Side. This is one of the schools that the political and media class would tell you is "failing" and that it's the fault of the teachers (and some knuckleheads would say there just needs to be more "trained responders"), but I can say without doubt that the hours those kids are in school is by far the safest of their day. I'll bet that even in the most affluent neighborhoods that the hours the kids are in school are going to be the safest of their day.

If you want to home school your kids because you don't want them being exposed to teh gays or because you don't want them learning all that non-biblical so-called "science" that's fine. Go ahead and doom your kid. If you're an "atheist liberal arts majors concerned about the influence of the religious right on curiculum (sic)" first, I would hope that whoever is home schooling you can teach you how to spell "curriculum". But second, I would say that both you and the god-botherer are making a huge mistake. With only a very very small number of exceptions, your kid is a lot better off in school, public or otherwise, than he is being taught by you at the kitchen table.

I have a friend who home-schooled his kid. Both he and his wife have PhDs and even they knew enough to hire tutors for most of the courses. And that was only because the kid had some very specific issues that made it difficult for him to go to school. His parents made it work because they were really really smart and really really rich, and they knew they weren't qualified to teach their kid on their own. (The kid is about to graduate from Northwestern University).

Home schooling is just another aspect of the continual effort to devalue expertise. Today, if you're a scientist you can't possibly know jack-shit about climate change because, hell, you're a scientist, and the man on the radio says that's all baloney. If you're a world renowned economist, you can't know shit because hell, you're a liberal. If you're a college professor, clearly me and momma can do a much better job of educating little Johnny. If you're a journalist, well, everybody knows you don't know anything because you're part of the "mainstream media", so everything in the newspaper is clearly bogus. Once expertise has been sufficiently degraded then you can get people to believe absolutely anything, because everybody knows the only true science is right there in the bible and by the way, I'll explain the bible to you, because if you read it on your own you'll only get the wrong idea. You can tell people anything and they won't be able to tell whether or not it's true. It's the most convenient way to destroy small-d democracy. I'm betting every single one of you can think of ways expertise is being degraded. and it's turning us into a nation of frightened dummies who all think they're smart as hell and by-god they'll be the ones teaching their children how to spell "curiculum" thank you very much.

If all parents cared, school systems could focus on what they are best suited to doing -- educating. School systems "fail" when they have to pick up the slack from parents who won't/can't take responsibility for their own children.

Schools can not effectively manage malnourished, abused, ignored or otherwise un-nurtured children no matter how much they "care". Especially when they are dependent on support for the same people who don't think their kids are worth any investment of money or time in the first place.

I agree that universal (and I'll throw in equal) education is good for society. The question is how to bootstrap this potential good from a society with such perverse priorities.

Your falling for the "only one problem" myth. The problems with our education system is (as you say, the parents). It is also the teachers, the unions, the administrations, the local, state and federal governments. The problem runs from parent to POTUS.

The document sets forth the short-term and long-term goals with milestones for the intelligent design movement, with its governing goals stated in the opening paragraph:

"To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural, and political legacies"
"To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and human beings are created by God"

According to the Discovery Institute's own internal strategy documents the goal is to defeat science because they think science makes people evil.

If I have to choose between competence and caring, I'll take competence. The majority of the people you interact with won't care about you at all. It took us quite a bit of socialization, evolution and technological development to get to a point where we don't have to care much at all on a personal level about the people feeding us, supplying us, paying us, healing us, or even educating us. Everyone can benefit from their expertise no matter how much we may not like them as people (or they us). Bypassing pe

I can see no more good reason to pass up a subsidized education of such quality as we have than I can see good reason to pass up a free mechanic, laundry, or grocer.

If a free mechanic is making your car dangerous to drive, so that it craps out (or worse, explodes) while you're driving on the highway in traffic, then you're better off passing up his services and learning to fix your car yourself.

I believe that, in some areas in the US, the public education offered is definitely much worse than not even being

For the "good of society," I do like home school. Partly because I believe individual freedoms are important, and partly because I believe it's a good solution if schools are inadequate or downright terrible.

This attitude is antithetical to "society", as I understand the term (granted, I went to public schools). In a society, where common institutions fail, the community organizes to fix them. Education is a common interest, being that the entire community relies on a well-informed populace (partly to understand and take best advantage of individual freedoms/responsibilities).

Parents with a keen interest in teaching beyond the common standards can always do so in their own time. If they have time for one par

You seem to be the exception, not the rule. Your parents decided to actually give you an academic foundation along with the bible studies, that's fine. This took serious dedication from your parents and from you. I'll bet that your parents also got you involved with other children so you were able to build your social skills as well.Far too many parents keep their children out of the school system because of their fears that their little cherub is going to be corrupted, but then neglect to do anything bu

More like disappointed. Despite being atheist, I find the idea of knowing the bible to be wholly inappropriate, especially if it's a library book. It's unsanitary, and it makes the pages stick together.

Not all home-schooling is for religious reasons. Sometimes it is just because the local school system is failing the kids. Or ins some cases, because the public school is teaching religious theory instead of science.

As a student of the US education system, I can personally attest to the problems of the public system. I didn't fail any of my classes, perfect attendance for years, and in my senior year I was told I would be there again next year. Turns out those 'qualified educators' scheduled and taught me classes, but not the ones needed to meet state requirements, my parents pulled me out and I finished that year in a private school taking independent study.

Now I have a 8 year old boy who seems fine to me in second grade, that is until the 4th nine weeks and 2 suspensions from school. One for eating his sandwich into the shape of a gun, then later that day making "finger guns", and going "pew pew" like boys do. They said he was threatening the school with violence. Two weeks before he was suspended for "not keeping his hands to himself" I asked the teacher and found out he was trying to play tag at recess.

He was improperly advised. Not his fault. Or do you believe that all students should read the educational requirements laws for their state and assume their advisers, the professionals doing that job for money, are incorrect? I'm sorry, but I usually assume that professionals know what they're doing in order to save my sanity.

His eight-year-old should be allowed to be an eight-year-old and his school should be chastised for its foolish zero-tolerance policies. The rampant CYA and zero tolerance are more destructive than that which they attempt to prevent.

One very important lesson that children are not being taught is that they must be their own advocate. It is not doing them any benefit to allow them to rely upon others to ensure things are being taken care of in their best interest. Should the school guidance councilor/academic adviser have been paying attention and told him he was missing graduation requirements? Yes. Should the kid have been paying attention to that himself? Yes.

You're assuming he went to the advisers or followed their advice... While advising was "required" at my high school, there were plenty of ways to slip yourself through the cracks or choose your own classes regardless of your advisement. Seniors in high school are given some pretty good leeway in deciding for themselves.

I don't disagree with the zero tolerance policies though. You still have to consider public schools are given conflicting requirements: Educate children and allow them to grow intellectual

It's worth noting that fully 50% of students in public school are reading at a "below average" level. The OP says his grandson isn't reading "as well as schooled kids his age". Which schooled kids? Where does the grandson fall on a percentile basis? It's a near certainty there are some kids in the public system that are performing even worse than the grandson despite having received instruction from "qualified" individuals.

If you break the educational results down by state, you will see that yes, yes there are.

As long as you don't make the mistake of living outside one of the civilized zones, you can actually see results pretty similar to the wealthy bits of Europe and even parts of Asia. Certain other states, by consistently achieving results that make you wonder if they are actually telecommuting from some hellish African warzone, really drag us down...

If you break the educational results down by state, you will see that yes, yes there are.
As long as you don't make the mistake of living outside one of the civilized zones, you can actually see results pretty similar to the wealthy bits of Europe and even parts of Asia. Certain other states, by consistently achieving results that make you wonder if they are actually telecommuting from some hellish African warzone, really drag us down...

In my experience this disparity is spot-on and frighteningly so. I was educated in a cow pasture of a public high school where about a quarter of my graduating class was already at boot camp by graduation and art, music, and science funding were cut before even considering touching football or wrestling. Years later, as a graduate student in Los Angeles, I was involved in various mentoring programs for high school students and teachers. The students from public schools in Santa Monica and the Palisades (i.e., very wealthy areas) were just polishing their resumes before starting at Stanford or Harvard in the Fall. Most of their teachers had PhDs. The teachers that we mentored came instead from the other parts of LA Unified where graduation rates were below 50% and schools spent money on metal detectors and fences. We even had to supply them with the teaching materials for the workshops because it would otherwise have come from their own pockets. Their students' ambitions included staying out of jail and learning to read. And that was just the difference in one county.

Of course there are. There's numerous private schools you can send your kids to where they don't have to worry much about gangs, violence, armed police arresting them if they have a temper tantrum, etc. Don't expect these places to be cheap, though.

My brother is extremely dyslexic. Has problems writing his own name. He is quite capable of comprehending complex chemical processes, and has helped me in some personal hobby chemistry more than once, and found it very rewarding.

If the student has an impairment, then the teacher/mentor needs to help that student a little more. That's all it means. It was my understanding from the submitter that the child is not mentally handicapped, merely behind the curve. This is easily correctable with some added effort.

If remedial mathematics and reading comprehension are required, administer accordingly. Don't abandon the student because they fail to meet your expectations.

My brother is by no means a dullard. Can't read or write to save his life, but the core concepts of chemistry are his, and I know that for a fact. Literacy is a gateway to knowledge, most assuredly. It, however, is not the exclusive gateway to knowledge. If you treat it like it is, you aren't a good teacher.